This is repulsive [politics]

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Please say who your responding to and explain what you mean.

Your thoughts are important.

Important my eye...

Here's my humble opinion: our legal system was not set up to address the criminal who is a part of any massive, ongoing conspiracy designed to cause continuous harm and, ultimately, the complete destruction of the system itself.

Think about that for a moment, if you will - if, outside the context of terrorism, I said that there was an effort to undermine, damage, and destroy our very way of life would you actually find that to be criminal?

Seems like an act of war to me.

However, it really isn't. Terrorists are no more capable of waging war on us than, say, Haiti. Ultimately, this is something new we're facing.

So, it makes no sense to treat this as a traditional war. Furthermore, it makes even less sense to treat this as merely criminal. So what do we do?

My personal suggestion is the creation of a specific code of justice pertaining to terrorism, but alas, that is not on the agenda. However, in the mean time, it seems to me to make sense that we assure that people with a single-minded drive to do harm to us are unable to do so.

Hence, I am in favor of indefinite detention - so long as the cases are reviewed regularly and fairly, until which time we develop a code of justice pertaining specifically to the treatment of known terrorists. All cases should be subject to regular review.

Furthermore, I think our legal system, in cases of terrorism by non-citizens, should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" policy so long as the charges are able to pass a judicial evidentiary hearing perhaps presided over by a grand jury.

That's what I meant. I doubt you'd want the long, mundane details of how I believe the judicial code should be revised regarding terrorism, but if you do, let me know.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Castout since you know I consider you a friend I won't come back with a kneejerk response.

Just what should my country do to protect itself from terrorism ?

You see sooner or later someone's going to abuse the war on terror and the victims would be innocent Americans. To make sure that the law doesn't get abused the law should be made so that the innocent should be able to defend their case reasonably against the charges brought against them. It's called justice and not purge. If you are being indiscriminate against all terror suspect including Americans who may not be guilty at all or even any citizenship then by what moral authority do you stand against the very terrorist you claim to make war with?

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Castout

For the two PMs you sent me I'm quite disappointed with you Firewall.


You see sooner or later someone's going to abuse the war on terror and the victims would be innocent Americans. To make sure that the law doesn't get abused the law should be made so that the innocent should be able to defend their case reasonably against the charges brought against them. It's called justice and not purge. If you are being indiscriminate against all terror suspect including Americans who may not be guilty at all then by what moral authority do you stand against the very terrorist you claim to make war with?

I think you misunderstood me. In these dangerous times how do we solve this and, make everyone happy.

Who knows, if we all discuss this we may come up with an answer.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I think you misunderstood me. In these dangerous times how do we solve this and, make everyone happy.

Who knows, if we all discuss this we may come up with an answer.

No such thing as making everyone happy. The best we can do is find a method that works and serves the common good and the core values we have instituted.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No such thing as making everyone happy. The best we can do is find a method that works and serves the common good and the core values we have instituted.

I go along with you Aramike. What is the best method that most Americans can live with ?

Ahmed Ghailani was found not guilty of each of the over 280 counts against him — save one — in the first civilian trial of a Gitmo detainee conducted by the Obama administration.

The Kenya/Tanzania bombings.

WTG team Obama!

The guy had already confessed, and would have been dead by now with a military tribunal. That and other evidence thrown out of court. Guilty as hell, never should have been in civil court.

Way to go, a conviction, 20-life.
About time this long running farce got a result
Its amazing that you somehow have a wierd faith in military tribunals to get results as despite the whole pile of problems faced with trying to make them actually legal in the first place they have so far managed to get one plea bargain and two failures.

So your grand solution is instead of going for a course which looks likely to hand down a life term is to rather take a course which resulted in two total failures and one plea bargain term of less than a years jailtime.
Is their any particular reason you wish to follow the route of failure?

Once you head to civilian court you get in trouble for not Mirandizing these pieces of s***.

And there was me thinking the problem with the court and evidence was bugger all to do with Miranda as evidence gained without the reading may still be admissable.
The actual problem here was the use of torture and the fact that most of the "evidence" was obtained by a police force which the US state dept. puts on its yearly list of really dodgy police who make up evidence and force false confessions by torturing people.

[Skybird]

Guilt must not just be assumed or claimed - guilt and/or responsibility must be proven.

"Pressumed innocent as long as not proven guilty" is an inevitable pillar of Western justice systems that separates a police-state's arbitrariness from justice.

Rumours, hear-say and suggestions that a suspect is guilty, is no replacement for proving guilt. Claims that so9mebody would not be held by the military or the police if he were not guilty, are not only circular logic, but illustrate a deeply worrying lack of care and an as deeply worrying, unfounded blind trust in these organisations. But hierarchical organisations like these are runb by humans and thus they are as prone to human flaws, errors and corrupt decisions, like any other - you never should trust blindly.

Holding people in captivcity without being able to prove their guilt, is a sign of a dictatorship both in that it can be done without society and government objecting, and in that the intention is illustrated to act that arbitrarily.

Protecting intel sources which would get compromised if evidence needs to be shown to prove a suspect'S guilt, is not acceptable in that intelligence preventing a fundamental principle of the justice system does not serve peace, freedom and democracy, but tyranny - it is the intel of a policestate, then. That can be a dilemma, yes. But who said life is easy.

Police work done at home, suspects captured in own home nation, is not comparable to a shooting war at the frontline in another country.

Suspects held by the military, also need to be proven guilty within a reasonable timeframe. Else the miliutary behaves as a tyrant and a threat to freedom itself.

"Guilt must be proven". That is as simple a truth as is "Waterboarding and implementing agony on a subject is torture". It is disgusting to weasel around these simple truths.

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.

[Castout]

I agree with your point Skybird.


If US wanted revenge the way would be through CIA and not legal system. And once done it's done imo. Hasn't the war in Afghanistan and Iraq been enough already. And if not then the question then is why? and what kind of retribution that hasn't been done and when exactly would it end?


Going berserk is not a solution it's a desperation and a sign of frustration.

[the_tyrant]

terrorism would win in the short term, but they would lose in the long term
Why?
because they are indiscriminate
for the US, only some islamic people are considered "bad"
for them, everybody with a different religion is considered "bad"

therefore, terrorists could nuke Washington DC, but the US could not nuke Mecca

in the short term, indiscriminate warfare could work, but in the long term it would only reduce their support and ability to continue the war

therefore, i believe that the US should not detain everybody that has even the slightest ties to terrorism, but instead treat convicted terrorists horribly. A firring squad is too good for them, they should be executed with even worse methods

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And some people here give me the feeiling that they have not understood the difference between law-and-order, and revenge.

Says the guy who once wrote right here on this board that he favored killing the wives and children of foreign potentates in order to teach them a lesson. Why the sudden concern for our enemies rights?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Says the guy who once wrote right here on this board that he favored killing the wives and children of foreign potentates in order to teach them a lesson. Why the sudden concern for our enemies rights?

That ad hominem doesn't address his very well reasoned points.

The justice system, and indeed our entire political system, was originally set up to discourage individual abuses of power. It's the reasoning behind checks and balances. If you institute a justice system that has the right to unilaterally imprison people indefinitely under the assumption of guilt then the individual holds too much power over the system. It becomes subject to the whims and caprices of the individual. It goes entirely against how our country was established.

[Skybird]

I said that potentators must be made feeling the price of sanctions against them, in case of wars against their countries: targetting their families for example (while often civil populations gets bombed or at least "collateralised" without discrimination, while the families of those ruling often get explicitly saved from targetting).

I also said that one should not just ignore family members that can take revenge against yourself in case you killed the chieftain of the gang because he was a leading figure of the regime. At least those who likely have been risen and educated in the same mental attiotude like the - father or husband you had targetted.

And in my previous post in this thread I said that frontline action in a war does not compare to the policework needed to be done in your own nation in order to catch a criminal, since waging war does not compare to the instruments of enforcing law and order by the means of a justice system.

Finally, "potentators" refers to figures whose guilt and record is obvious and proven.

I see you are still good at your favourite hobby, August: turning words & manipulative quoting.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That ad hominem doesn't address his very well reasoned points.

Perhaps that's because my post wasn't intended to address them mookie. (please note my very clever use of the question mark). All I wanted to know was how his willingness to murder innocent people jibes with his demand that we afford our enemies the standards and protections we afford our own citizens.

Is that really, as he says: "turning words & manipulative quoting", or is it just that he doesn't like it when people point out his contradictions? You decide.

[tater]

He should have gotten 280 counts of murder, and he should be on death row. A minor conviction is not a win.

As for his confession, he was not waterboarded. The other enhanced interrogation techniques are not even close to waterboarding—which is the only EIT that you can even make an argument is torture. BTW, to be torture is has to cause "severe" physical or psychological harm, which is certainly grey enough to be debatable. The other EITs, again, and not even close to waterboarding, though.

Regardless, the same government (Clinton, Bush, then Obama) have killed people with no due process as a matter of course. Actionable intell, cruise-missle/JDAM through roof. Actionable intell, guy grabbed up at great risk to troops... that's "bad." I guess we can learn the lesson not to take prisoners, and simply kill anyone even suspected, instead.

Lower sentences for military tribunals should give lie to the notion that it is some sort of conspiracy to murder them. Bottom line is that virtually all evidence must be thrown out in a civil court, and certainly everything after they were captured since they were not Mirandized.

If these guys deserve constitutional protections, why are we allowed to summarily execute them? Shouldn't we need to convict them before dropping the JDAM?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Perhaps that's because my post wasn't intended to address them mookie. (please note my very clever use of the question mark). All I wanted to know was how his willingness to murder innocent people jibes with his demand that we afford our enemies the standards and protections we afford our own citizens.

Is that really, as he says: "turning words & manipulative quoting", or is it just that he doesn't like it when people point out his contradictions? You decide.

I think it's better to address the argument than to sling mud at the person making it. Even if someone's being a hypocrite, it's still better to take the high road. It's hard to do, but it's something we should aspire to.